NSF Survey: Biology Ph.D.'s Have Lower Pay, But Higher Job Security

Security Author: Edward R. Silverman A National Science Foundation employment survey has found that the median salary paid to individuals holding doctorates in biological and health sciences was lower in 1993 (the last year examined) than that paid to science and engineering Ph.D.'s in many other disciplines. At the same time, however, the study, scheduled for release next month, reports that doctoral degree- holders in the life sciences in general--including biological scientists--also experienced sharply lower unemployment and underemployment rates. To compile the survey, NSF queried nearly 50,000 randomly selected doctoral recipients from across the United States, who had held their Ph.D.'s for varying amounts of time. Responses were received from approximately 40,000. Data were analyzed to provide information by employment sector--academia, industry, and government--as well as occupation, gender, and field of study. The life sciences were divided into categories for biological and health, agricultural and food, and environmental scientists. A preview of the results was published in a "Data Brief" by NSF in March (R.K. Wilkinson, Vol. 1995, No. 5, March 15, 1995); additional data were made available to The Scientist in advance of publication of the full report. The median annual pay for agricultural and food scientists with doctorates was $53,000, compared with $55,100 for biological and health scientists and $57,500 for environmental scientists. The median figure for chemists was $64,100; for physicists, it was $66,400; and for chemical engineers, it was $72,000. The median salary for all of the life sciences was $55,000. The primary explanation for the differences, according to R. Keith Wilkinson--a senior analyst at NSF's Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS), which prepared the survey--is that a higher percentage of biological scientists than other types of researchers are working in academia, which has been paying less than industry or consulting firms. The study found that 48.4 percent of biological scientists were employed by universities and four-year colleges and 27 percent worked for what NSF categorized as private, for-profit entities. By contrast, among chemists, for instance, only 13.4 percent worked in academia, while 73.1 percent were employed by private, for-profit operations. Sidebar: Median Annual Salaries... Even in the commercial sector, however, salaries are lower for biological scientists than chemists. One reason for that "may be that chemists are in fairly diverse industries," suggests Joan Burrelli, also an analyst with NSF's SRS division. "Chemists are found everywhere--pharmaceutical, petroleum, glass, paper, rubber, paints--whereas biologists are pretty much in the pharmaceutical industry," which has been beset by mergers and layoffs (N. Sankaran, The Scientist, Oct. 3, 1994, page 1). Within the category of doctorates in biological and health sciences itself, there were differences in median annual salary among men and women. Men responding to the survey reported earning a median salary of $59,400, while the median for women respondents was $47,800. NSF officials suggest that, while more women have been entering the field in recent years, only a small percentage have worked sufficiently long to obtain the highest-paying positions, both in academia and industry. "It's usually the length of experience that counts for some of the differences. And it's also more typical for women to be found in four-year universities than in industry, which pays more," says Cora Marrett, assistant director of NSF's Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. "The good news is that the [pay] differences have narrowed quite a bit over time." While life sciences Ph.D.'s are generally paid less than their colleagues in other disciplines, they are more likely to keep receiving their paychecks. The study found that only 1.5 percent of the doctoral degree-holders in the life sciences reported being unemployed, compared with 2.1 percent among Ph.D.'s in the physical sciences and 1.7 percent in engineering. Ph.D.'s in social sciences, however, fared even better: They had a 1.4 percent unemployment rate. Computer and mathematical scientists had a 1.1 percent rate. Overall, according to the survey, the unemployment rate among doctoral scientists and engineers was 1.6 percent of the 513,460 individuals estimated to hold Ph.D.'s nationwide. By contrast, in 1993, the unemployment rate for the total U.S. labor force was nearly 7 percent, the report noted. NSF also measured underemployment, defined as people employed part-time when full-time work isn't available or employed outside the field in which they hold their degree. The study found that Ph.D.'s in the life sciences had the lowest underemployment rate, at 3.5 percent. The highest rate of underemployment was among physical scientists, at 6.1 percent. One observer explains the dichotomy--in which doctorates in life sciences report lower median annual pay, but also lower unemployment and underemployment rates--as a cyclical shift in the job market that is slowly starting to favor biologists and other life scientists. "During the Cold War era, physical sciences were emphasized," says Rita Colwell, a microbiology professor and president of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. "They rose and became the leaders. "But now we're going to see a shift as the brightest are attracted into life sciences, and they'll become the department chairs and deans, making the higher salaries. There's a lag." Despite the recent volatility in life sciences-related companies, the same general situation applies in industry. As examples of growth areas, she mentions wide-scale efforts to stabilize food supplies, research and control infectious diseases, and counteract germ warfare, all of which will offer increasing job opportunities in the life sciences. "That's where the action is now," says Colwell, who is also president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "It's going to be very interesting." This trend may already be under way. More people graduated with Ph.D.'s in biological and agricultural sciences in 1993 than in the physical sciences--6,058 compared with 3,700. That's a dramatic change from 1966, when 2,655 individuals were granted Ph.D.'s in physical sciences and only 2,711 received Ph.D.'s in biological and agricultural sciences, according to NSF. "We still have a clogged pipeline, but it's starting to shift," notes Colwell. "The biotech industry, for instance, is still fledgling, for the most part. But these people are destined to take over the reins of leadership." Edward R. Silverman is a freelance writer based in Millburn, N.J. (The Scientist, Vol:9, #14, pg.16 , July 10, 1995) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.) garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu

NSF Survey: Biology Ph.D.'s Have Lower Pay, But Higher Job Security

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of